These are uncharted waters, but if a president becomes the subject or target of a grand jury investigation and chooses not to testify while in office, especially if he ends up being an unindicted co-conspirator in a prosecution that results in convictions, I think there is a high probability that any statutes of limitation would be put on hold until he left office at which time he would be subject to prosecution like anyone else.

OK. I am going to ask for clarification here. I had no idea that the POTUS was somehow immune from prosecution while in office. I assumed that as legally only the highest ranking elected official of a republic, the POTUS would be subject to the same laws as anyone else. (i.e. If he shot Nancy Pelosi, he could be charged and prosecuted for it.)*

In the Roman Republic, Consuls, Praetors and all others holding what the Romans called 'Imperium', could not be prosecuted until they left office, but I had no notion that there was similar protection for the POTUS.

I note that Congresscritters are frequently charged before they resign.

*(That would be a tough one as juror: Convict or nullify?)

If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

I mean, impeachment is inherent political, so you're right that it doesn't matter if he committed a couple of technical violations.

But the immovability of Trump's support is wildly overstated. Firing Comey lead to like a four-point sustained drop in his approval rating. Sufficiently clear evidence of a sufficiently clear crime will swing a lot more people.

(You're right that his hard-core supporters will probably not abandon him. Nixon had a 25% approval rating when he left office. But you don't need to win them over; you just need to win over the squishier supporters. When Nixon had a 25% approval rating, he left office).

While I concur that the size of his immovable base is probably over-stated, I'm more worried that nice, centrist, Serious Liberals would refuse to pull the trigger on impeachment and removal. The Dems will get the House in fall without question, and I am even optimistic about the Senate. (In short, I think Trump is toxic for the GOP, more than current forecasts state, but we'll find out if I'm right.) I can see the scenario where undeniable evidence of serious crimes comes out and Republicans even start abandoning him, but the Blues (of all people) hem and haw and maybe even impeach but don't remove.

Why? Because I spent Easter with some friends who are nice, centrist, Serious Liberals, and they were all saying that they'd rather leave Trump in and run against him in 2020 than deal with a far more effective President Pence in 2019 and 2020. I pointed out that if Trump gets away with serious crimes then we're setting a dangerous precedent, and their answer was basically "Yeah, but a couple years of slightly more effective Republican domestic policy, man! You wanna live through that?"

And the other thing is that nice, centrist, Serious Liberals have always had an allergy to holding the powerful accountable. After everything else that Pelosi & Co. have excused for decades, do we really think the Congressional Blues would go through with punishing a felonious President? I have my doubts.

"Well, yes, we saw the video of Trump raping a toddler while sucking off Putin, and we saw Putin hand cash to Trump and say 'For your 2020 campaign, tovarisch', but we just felt we should not politicize impeachment and criminal justice, and it would set the wrong precedent."

Tell me I'm wrong.

"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

These are uncharted waters, but if a president becomes the subject or target of a grand jury investigation and chooses not to testify while in office, especially if he ends up being an unindicted co-conspirator in a prosecution that results in convictions, I think there is a high probability that any statutes of limitation would be put on hold until he left office at which time he would be subject to prosecution like anyone else.

OK. I am going to ask for clarification here. I had no idea that the POTUS was somehow immune from prosecution while in office. I assumed that as legally only the highest ranking elected official of a republic, the POTUS would be subject to the same laws as anyone else. (i.e. If he shot Nancy Pelosi, he could be charged and prosecuted for it.)*

In the Roman Republic, Consuls, Praetors and all others holding what the Romans called 'Imperium', could not be prosecuted until they left office, but I had no notion that there was similar protection for the POTUS.

I note that Congresscritters are frequently charged before they resign.

*(That would be a tough one as juror: Convict or nullify?)

In short, while he's not a monarch, he is a Head of State. And he heads the only branch of government where all decisions ultimately flow from an individual (at least in some analyses) rather than being distributed. Congress is a body. Judicial work is divided up among many judges. Even the court of highest appeal decides cases by vote. But there's only one president, and the executive branch answers to him. They are supposed to carry out his instructions in accordance with the law, but they answer to him. So many argue that a sitting President cannot be charged with crimes, only impeached and removed and THEN charged with crimes.

It's a dangerously monarchical theory, IMHO, but I see the argument.

"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

These are uncharted waters, but if a president becomes the subject or target of a grand jury investigation and chooses not to testify while in office, especially if he ends up being an unindicted co-conspirator in a prosecution that results in convictions, I think there is a high probability that any statutes of limitation would be put on hold until he left office at which time he would be subject to prosecution like anyone else.

OK. I am going to ask for clarification here. I had no idea that the POTUS was somehow immune from prosecution while in office. I assumed that as legally only the highest ranking elected official of a republic, the POTUS would be subject to the same laws as anyone else. (i.e. If he shot Nancy Pelosi, he could be charged and prosecuted for it.)*

In the Roman Republic, Consuls, Praetors and all others holding what the Romans called 'Imperium', could not be prosecuted until they left office, but I had no notion that there was similar protection for the POTUS.

I note that Congresscritters are frequently charged before they resign.

*(That would be a tough one as juror: Convict or nullify?)

Constitutionally, the Congress is the only body that can put a sitting President on trial. He is not subject to prosecution by the court system, at least as is currently understood.

"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

These are uncharted waters, but if a president becomes the subject or target of a grand jury investigation and chooses not to testify while in office, especially if he ends up being an unindicted co-conspirator in a prosecution that results in convictions, I think there is a high probability that any statutes of limitation would be put on hold until he left office at which time he would be subject to prosecution like anyone else.

OK. I am going to ask for clarification here. I had no idea that the POTUS was somehow immune from prosecution while in office. I assumed that as legally only the highest ranking elected official of a republic, the POTUS would be subject to the same laws as anyone else. (i.e. If he shot Nancy Pelosi, he could be charged and prosecuted for it.)*

In the Roman Republic, Consuls, Praetors and all others holding what the Romans called 'Imperium', could not be prosecuted until they left office, but I had no notion that there was similar protection for the POTUS.

I note that Congresscritters are frequently charged before they resign.

*(That would be a tough one as juror: Convict or nullify?)

Constitutionally, the Congress is the only body that can put a sitting President on trial. He is not subject to prosecution by the court system, at least as is currently understood.

These are uncharted waters, but if a president becomes the subject or target of a grand jury investigation and chooses not to testify while in office, especially if he ends up being an unindicted co-conspirator in a prosecution that results in convictions, I think there is a high probability that any statutes of limitation would be put on hold until he left office at which time he would be subject to prosecution like anyone else.

OK. I am going to ask for clarification here. I had no idea that the POTUS was somehow immune from prosecution while in office. I assumed that as legally only the highest ranking elected official of a republic, the POTUS would be subject to the same laws as anyone else. (i.e. If he shot Nancy Pelosi, he could be charged and prosecuted for it.)*

In the Roman Republic, Consuls, Praetors and all others holding what the Romans called 'Imperium', could not be prosecuted until they left office, but I had no notion that there was similar protection for the POTUS.

I note that Congresscritters are frequently charged before they resign.

*(That would be a tough one as juror: Convict or nullify?)

Constitutionally, the Congress is the only body that can put a sitting President on trial. He is not subject to prosecution by the court system, at least as is currently understood.

This seems to be somewhat contested, doesn't it? It sounds like there's no definitive case law about whether a sitting president can be indicted. But the DOJ's policy is that he cannot, and everyone expects Mueller to consider that binding.

It was Hamilton's opinion, fwiw. Also, there's the position that even special prosecutors work for DoJ, which works for the president, who theoretically can fire with impunity anyone in the Executive Branch except the VP.

These are uncharted waters, but if a president becomes the subject or target of a grand jury investigation and chooses not to testify while in office, especially if he ends up being an unindicted co-conspirator in a prosecution that results in convictions, I think there is a high probability that any statutes of limitation would be put on hold until he left office at which time he would be subject to prosecution like anyone else.

OK. I am going to ask for clarification here. I had no idea that the POTUS was somehow immune from prosecution while in office. I assumed that as legally only the highest ranking elected official of a republic, the POTUS would be subject to the same laws as anyone else. (i.e. If he shot Nancy Pelosi, he could be charged and prosecuted for it.)*

In the Roman Republic, Consuls, Praetors and all others holding what the Romans called 'Imperium', could not be prosecuted until they left office, but I had no notion that there was similar protection for the POTUS.

I note that Congresscritters are frequently charged before they resign.

*(That would be a tough one as juror: Convict or nullify?)

Constitutionally, the Congress is the only body that can put a sitting President on trial. He is not subject to prosecution by the court system, at least as is currently understood.

Until he leaves office.

"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen

"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

Eh, Trump announces no missiles got shot down to his voters, Putin tells his people they were all shot down, life goes on for everyone except the victims.

"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

"As project manager I need to make sure my team goes through an entire interview without saying anything too transparently misogynistic. But I am worried that some of the guys will mess up."

"Congressmen, your task is to plan an amazing fundraiser at the huge, beautiful Trump hotel!"

"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

OFFS. If somebody had griped about national security officials holding clearances despite disliking Obama, Rand Paul would have been all over that shit.

Honestly, when it comes to criticizing Trump's authoritarianism, Paul is not among the better GOP Senators. So what, exactly, was the point of having an ostensibly libertarian-leaning Senator from the House of Paul?

"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

Had you given me a science fiction story 20 years ago in which the main way politicians in the 21st century communicated publicly was through something called "Twitter" in which they were limited to 140 characters while employing the vocabulary and punctuation of a 14-year-old cheerleading squad, I'd have laughed and said, "Funny idea, but a little far fetched, don't you think?"

Trump wouldnt have been elected if they had implemented the 280 char expansion on or before March 2016.

So what you are saying is that Twitter was for Trump before it was against him?

"People are sometimes the answer, but they are ALWAYS the problem." -- Ellie
"pedialyte is like planned parenthood for hangovers. it costs you a bit, but it makes your little problem go away until the next time you drink too much."-- dhex

I mean, Deplorably Scottish has a point? It does look like that guy more than anyone who's been a runner-up in a Superbowl or the Oscars?

I'm pretty terrified of what will happen if it turns out that she's lying about this part. Or, really, anything.

All it takes is one provable lie and Trump's opponents will be judged by a standard that he fails on a daily (hourly?) basis.

"They were basically like D&D min maxers, but instead of pissing off their DM, they destroyed the global economy. Also, instead of their DM making a level 7 paladin fight a beholder as punishment, he got a +3 sword of turning."
--Mo

This looks terrible, but artist sketches are notoriously bullshit even when the person is really trying.

I mean, the one actual witness to the Unabomber attack ended up accidentally giving a sketch of a completely different person. So the sketch of the hoodie dude with the awesome 'stache and kickass blueblockers was not the person the witness saw leaving the package.

Porn stars aren't generally considered to be geniuses, but I wouldn't expect them to intentionally describe their own husbands or boyfriends or whatever to manufacture a fake picture. Why not just give some random person?

"The constitution is more of a BDSM agreement with a safe word." - Sandy

"Neoliberalism. Austerity. Booga booga!!!!" - JasonL

"We can't confirm rumors that Lynndie England is in the running to be Gina Haspel's personal aide." - DAR